whiplash2411 wrote:
I am not sure if I understand what you're saying correctly. Yes, it's not wrong to take a test cold, but perhaps indirectly implying that "native" ability is an indicator of performance at BSchool is pushing it a tad too much? I mean, a vast majority studies for the test, and BSchool classes aren't always made up of "genius" material. Hardworkers deserve more credit than the inherently intelligent, I think. Do correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of your statement.
I understand what you're saying, and certainly working hard is a very good thing! But going too far in the other direction doesn't make much sense either.
To take a (reeeely) hypothetical situation, let's say that Person A studied for the GMAT for 15 minutes, that "study" consisting of reading the GMAT spec sheets to get an idea of what the test was about. Person B studied for the GMAT intensely for 50 hours, that is, 200 times as much as Person A. They both manage to score 700 on the GMAT.
The two then end up in the same classroom. The professor asks a question, which Person A manages to answer after about 10 seconds of thought. Is it feasible for Person B to ponder the question 200x longer, that is, for about half an hour, then raise his hand? Probably not. A and B take an exam. Person A finishes in the allotted 2 hours. Does Person B have 400 hours to finish his test? Probably not. In this scenario, these two clearly do not belong in the same classroom.
So personally, I'd like to avoid being Person B.
That's not to say though that I'm entirely opposed to studying either - it seems to me that the GMAT has some inherent resistance to being merely a measure of how well someone's prepped for it - otherwise, my own score would have been extremely low. Plus, studying proper writing is good for an aspiring business student.